[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: WIPP shipment through Albq. NM
Ruth,
I admire your work at this issue.
May I suggest that the next time the councilman
responds with "that's a matter of opinion" you supply
him and everyone else on the council with copies of
the studies (NRC documents) that show shipment of
radioactive waste is safe. Of course, you will need
to ask for responses. If none are forth coming, you
may have to write letters, or hold a newsconference,
about the lack of response of the Council.
You will need to play the game the anti-nuclear crowd
does.
--- RuthWeiner@AOL.COM wrote:
> In a message dated 1/13/2004 8:51:59 AM Eastern
> Standard Time, William V Lipton
> <liptonw@DTEENERGY.COM> writes:
>
> >BTW, if I'm missing something, here, please let me
> know, but I do not see
> >how the Albq. hearing will accomplish much more
> than allowing the public to
> >let off steam. DOT preemption powers are
> well-established. An "I know
> >better than you." presentation will accompish
> nothing more than reinforcing
> >public concerns.
>
> Well, they certainly "let off steam" in the form of
> an endlessly repeated series of fabrications and
> distortions, interspersed with throwaway sarcasm and
> insults directed at DOE, Sandia, Los Alamos, Fernald
> (Fernald??), the Nevada Test Site, Yucca Mountain,
> etc. Nothing pleasant or remotely courteous or
> truthful about these folks. Moreover, the City
> Council clerk skipped over my name (I was the only
> speaker against the memorial) and announced the
> public hearing at an end without recognizing me,
> though I had signed up in plenty of time and was not
> the last speaker on the list. I believe it was
> deliberate. Yes, I have written to the City Council
> about this. I also wrote a long letter about TRU
> waste transportation, which I will post if there is
> an interest.
>
> I am only writing this because I believe that the
> public policy problem is far more serious even than
> I thought. I tried to tell Councilman Gomez (author
> of the anti TRU transportation memorial) that his
> memorial was based on erroneous information (exactly
> the words I used)and he responded "that's a matter
> of opinion." Well, science is not a matter of
> opinion. For example, the facts that the TRUPACT-II
> meets the standards of 10 CFR Part 71 Subpart E, and
> that contact handled TRU waste is not very
> radioactive (because the half-lives involved are
> pretty long), and that stable hydrogen is not
> radioactive at all are not "matters of opinion."
>
> Folks, we have got to meet the lies head-on and
> expose them for what they are. All DOE has bought
> itself by pandering is more trouble. It gives
> credibility to the lies. What I went through last
> night was absolutely not fun (and unlike the
> professional anti-nukes there, I don't get paid to
> go to hearings!) Had I not been alone in my
> opposition, the clerk might not have skipped over me
> (yes, I was asked, when I signed up to speak, was I
> for or agaisnt). Please, please, go to these
> hearings and meetings, speak up, write to your
> elected representatives. Yes it is time consuming.
> No it is not fun. I don't do it because I enjoy it
> -- I too have better things to do with my time --
> but because I feel a responsibility.
>
> Suppose the clerk had skipped over an anti-nuke
> without allowing him or her to speak? Do you
> suppose that person would have politely passed a
> note to his or her council representative and then
> gone home and written a polite letter, without any
> sarcasm or insults, to the City Council, as I did?
>
=====
+++++++++++++++++++
"There's no trick to being a humorist when you have the whole government working for you."
Will Rogers
-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus